The Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in Janus v. AFSCME et al. To those (like me) who support the union movement, this is an abomination. To those who don't, this is a victory for freedom.
The rationale of Janus, however, is quite interesting. It struck down fair-share fees (which are illegal in Indiana because of course they are) on the grounds that taking money from one individual forcefully to advocate positions with which that individual disagrees is necessarily a violation of the 1st Amendment. This is an interesting view of the 1st Amendment, particularly when combined with the Hobby Lobby case of a few years ago. Apparently, the Court is signaling that government policies can't compel individuals or organizations to expend money to advocate positions with which they disagree.
Can't this work the other way as well? Can't unions then file a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that being forced by statute to represent and advocate for those who don't contribute fair-share fees is in essence being compelled to advocate positions with which they disagree (i.e. non-members should get the same benefits as members)?
Given that the next step from the anti-labor movement appears to be a lawsuit seeking to recover all fair-share fees "illegally and unconstitutionally" collected, what if Unions file suit against all freeloaders on a quantum merit theory?
Take the two lawsuits together, and it certainly presents a thorny problem for the courts to deal with (that they brought on themselves).
Today's musing.
No comments:
Post a Comment